Archive for February 9th, 2008

As you know, I have been supporting Ron Paul for president, even contributing financially to his campaign. I have long planned on voting for Dr Paul in Ohio’s March 4 primary.

I had thought that this would be a symbolic act, as I assumed that the nomination would be settled by then. While this is apparently true regarding the Republican contest- barring a near-miraculous surge for Dr Paul, who has been a disappointment in the primaries- it is far from true in the Democratic primary, where Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are in a very tight race.

Now, Ohio’s primary is "winner take all", so a vote for Dr Paul would not even add to his delegate count at the convention, where I hope at least to see a speech or two that speaks the truth about the war.

The prospect of the Clintons returning to the White House is one that fills me with nausea and dread. I know, I have decried the demonization of Mrs Clinton here, but I cannot imagine how 4, or God help us, 8 years of Clinton rule could be anything but disastrous, not least because of the poison it will inspire on the Right. It is hard to see how an Obama presidency could be worse, and it is easy to imagine that it could bring about considerable good.

And so my dilemma: should I vote in the Democratic primary, which I am free to do as a registered Independent, and try and keep Mrs Clinton out of the White House? Or should I vote for the man whose positions on the issues are closest to mine?

I have never had much use for strategic voting, have voted for third party candidates, and have sat out elections rather than vote for the "lesser evil".

But we do not live in ordinary times. Our nation is in terrible trouble, and a McCain vs Clinton contest is perhaps as bad a choice as could be offered in such a crucial election. McCain is promising more war, for ever and ever amen. And Mrs Clinton would initiate the Age of Nausea.

What should I do?

Daniel Nichols

Read Full Post »